Mdthbs

Can there be an atomic nucleus where there are more protons than neutrons?

Why does b+=(4,) work and b = b + (4,) doesn't work when b is a list?

Can you upgrade armour from breastplate to halfplate?

How can I learn to write better questions to test for conceptual understanding?

I am often given, occasionally stolen, rarely sold, and never borrowed

What power does the UK parliament hold over a Prime Minister whom they refuse to remove from power?

Why does Principal Vagina say, "no relation" after introducing himself?

Front hydraulic disk brake is too powerful on MTB — solutions?

Will Schnorr Multi-signatures completely replace ECDSA?

Is there a push, in the United States, to use gender-neutral language and gender pronouns (when they are given)?

Why do Computer Science degrees contain a high proportion of mathematics?

What is this game with a red cricket pushing a ball?

What are the branches of statistics?

Why exactly is the answer 50 ohms?

Fermat's polygonal number theorem

Extra battery in the bay of an HDD

Standard cumulative distribution function with optimization model variable

In "Avatar: The Last Airbender" can a metalbender bloodbend if there is metal in our blood?

How to protect my Wi-Fi password from being displayed by Android phones when sharing it with QR code?

How to give a rationality-inducing drug to an entire software company?

Easy way of generating a 50-150W load @12V

Incorrect mmap behavior when assembly files included in the project

Can Boris Johnson invoke the Civil Contingencies Act to suspend the Benn law?

Is it possible to have 2 ports open on SSH with 2 different authentication schemes?

What power does the UK parliament hold over a Prime Minister whom they refuse to remove from power?

What does the British parliament hope to achieve by requesting a third Brexit extension?Can Boris Johnson invoke the Civil Contingencies Act to suspend the Benn law?Could Boris Johnson send the extension to Brussels via a slow route that would not arrive before Oct.31How did Theresa May remain PM after her Brexit deal was rejected?If the opposition wins a No Confidence vote in the week of April 8, 2019, could they stop No Deal?What is the latest date a general election in the UK can prevent a no-deal BrexitThe actual purview of Her Majesty The Queen's prerogative?According to UK government, Parliament cannot stop a no-deal Brexit: Could this also be used to push through the agreement agreed by Theresa May?Could Boris Johnson theoretically ignore any legislation passed to prevent no-deal brexit?Why did Boris Johnson call for new elections?Why does the UK Prime Minister need the permission of Parliament to call a general election?Can Boris Johnson request a Brexit extension to November 1st?Would this use of *nobile officium* be a separation of powers violation?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}
.everyonelovesstackoverflow{position:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;}

5

I've seen several questions deal with the issues surrounding this issue, but none have tried to tackle this head on.

Boris Johnson had a defection within his party over a key Brexit vote. He then removed the defecting members of his own party from the party itself, which has left him without a majority.

Boris Johnson will strip 21 Tory MPs of the whip in one of the biggest parliamentary bloodbaths in history.

Nine former Cabinet ministers including Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Rory Stewart and Greg Clark will lose the Tory whip after rebelling against the government to try and block a no deal Brexit.

The opposition refuses to vote for no-confidence

U.K. opposition party leaders rejected a plan to put forward a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister Boris Johnson this week at a meeting in Westminster on Monday.

This is now a truly bizarre situation

• Boris Johnson wants No-deal Brexit to happen, which it will, if he can find a way to avoid the law instructing him to ask for an extension (various methods have been floated for him to avoid it)


• Parliament could remove him and install a Prime Minister who would carry out their wishes and get an extension, but does not wish to do so for ostensibly political reasons
  

How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation), or can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?

NOTE: While Brexit is the catalyst here, this goes beyond just Brexit to the powers of Parliament itself

united-kingdom parliament house-of-commons prime-minister

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

MachavityMachavity

19.8k77 gold badges6363 silver badges9797 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  The key point missing is that no one trusts Johnson. The opposition parties are happy to remove him or go for a GE as soon as the extension to the Brexit deadline is agreed. Without that legal agreement they do not trust Johnson and sorry he will do something unexpected to force no deal
  
  – Jontia
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment
 | 

5

I've seen several questions deal with the issues surrounding this issue, but none have tried to tackle this head on.

Boris Johnson had a defection within his party over a key Brexit vote. He then removed the defecting members of his own party from the party itself, which has left him without a majority.

Boris Johnson will strip 21 Tory MPs of the whip in one of the biggest parliamentary bloodbaths in history.

Nine former Cabinet ministers including Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Rory Stewart and Greg Clark will lose the Tory whip after rebelling against the government to try and block a no deal Brexit.

The opposition refuses to vote for no-confidence

U.K. opposition party leaders rejected a plan to put forward a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister Boris Johnson this week at a meeting in Westminster on Monday.

This is now a truly bizarre situation

• Boris Johnson wants No-deal Brexit to happen, which it will, if he can find a way to avoid the law instructing him to ask for an extension (various methods have been floated for him to avoid it)


• Parliament could remove him and install a Prime Minister who would carry out their wishes and get an extension, but does not wish to do so for ostensibly political reasons
  

How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation), or can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?

NOTE: While Brexit is the catalyst here, this goes beyond just Brexit to the powers of Parliament itself

united-kingdom parliament house-of-commons prime-minister

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

MachavityMachavity

19.8k77 gold badges6363 silver badges9797 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  The key point missing is that no one trusts Johnson. The opposition parties are happy to remove him or go for a GE as soon as the extension to the Brexit deadline is agreed. Without that legal agreement they do not trust Johnson and sorry he will do something unexpected to force no deal
  
  – Jontia
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment
 | 

I've seen several questions deal with the issues surrounding this issue, but none have tried to tackle this head on.

Boris Johnson had a defection within his party over a key Brexit vote. He then removed the defecting members of his own party from the party itself, which has left him without a majority.

Boris Johnson will strip 21 Tory MPs of the whip in one of the biggest parliamentary bloodbaths in history.

Nine former Cabinet ministers including Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Rory Stewart and Greg Clark will lose the Tory whip after rebelling against the government to try and block a no deal Brexit.

The opposition refuses to vote for no-confidence

U.K. opposition party leaders rejected a plan to put forward a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister Boris Johnson this week at a meeting in Westminster on Monday.

This is now a truly bizarre situation

• Boris Johnson wants No-deal Brexit to happen, which it will, if he can find a way to avoid the law instructing him to ask for an extension (various methods have been floated for him to avoid it)


• Parliament could remove him and install a Prime Minister who would carry out their wishes and get an extension, but does not wish to do so for ostensibly political reasons
  

How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation), or can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?

NOTE: While Brexit is the catalyst here, this goes beyond just Brexit to the powers of Parliament itself

united-kingdom parliament house-of-commons prime-minister

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

MachavityMachavity

19.8k77 gold badges6363 silver badges9797 bronze badges

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

MachavityMachavity

19.8k77 gold badges6363 silver badges9797 bronze badges

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

MachavityMachavity

19.8k77 gold badges6363 silver badges9797 bronze badges

asked 9 hours ago

MachavityMachavity

19.8k77 gold badges6363 silver badges9797 bronze badges

asked 9 hours ago

MachavityMachavity

19.8k77 gold badges6363 silver badges9797 bronze badges

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

4

How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation)

Yes, see the Benn Act, which does exactly this.

can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?

Only insofar as Parliament doesn't legislate to force him to do something else. In that case, the legislation may prescribe penalties for failure to comply which would then come into force. Even if not, as in the case of the Benn Act, the PM would be forced to comply via court action. Failure to comply following a court order would result in contempt of court charges. Note that in the current case, despite his public pronunciations, the PM has in fact committed himself in court documents to following the requirements of the Benn Act and additionally commited to not frustrating it's purpose. He recognises that he is not above the law.

share|improve this answer

answered 9 hours ago

Dan ScallyDan Scally

1,40477 silver badges1212 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.
  
  – Jontia
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment
 | 

2

The most honest answer would be that no-one really knows. Until the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, the situation couldn't arise because a PM who lost the ability to govern could use the royal prerogative to call an election. The legal theory is that Parliament is sovereign (subject to caveats about Queen's Consent), but the details of how that works in practice may not be settled until a few more theories have been presented to the Supreme Court and affirmed or rejected.

share|improve this answer

answered 9 hours ago

Peter TaylorPeter Taylor

3,0601010 silver badges1919 bronze badges

add a comment
 | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f46364%2fwhat-power-does-the-uk-parliament-hold-over-a-prime-minister-whom-they-refuse-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

4

How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation)

Yes, see the Benn Act, which does exactly this.

can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?

Only insofar as Parliament doesn't legislate to force him to do something else. In that case, the legislation may prescribe penalties for failure to comply which would then come into force. Even if not, as in the case of the Benn Act, the PM would be forced to comply via court action. Failure to comply following a court order would result in contempt of court charges. Note that in the current case, despite his public pronunciations, the PM has in fact committed himself in court documents to following the requirements of the Benn Act and additionally commited to not frustrating it's purpose. He recognises that he is not above the law.

share|improve this answer

answered 9 hours ago

Dan ScallyDan Scally

1,40477 silver badges1212 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.
  
  – Jontia
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment
 | 

4

How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation)

Yes, see the Benn Act, which does exactly this.

can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?

Only insofar as Parliament doesn't legislate to force him to do something else. In that case, the legislation may prescribe penalties for failure to comply which would then come into force. Even if not, as in the case of the Benn Act, the PM would be forced to comply via court action. Failure to comply following a court order would result in contempt of court charges. Note that in the current case, despite his public pronunciations, the PM has in fact committed himself in court documents to following the requirements of the Benn Act and additionally commited to not frustrating it's purpose. He recognises that he is not above the law.

share|improve this answer

answered 9 hours ago

Dan ScallyDan Scally

1,40477 silver badges1212 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.
  
  – Jontia
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment
 | 

How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation)

Yes, see the Benn Act, which does exactly this.

can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?

Only insofar as Parliament doesn't legislate to force him to do something else. In that case, the legislation may prescribe penalties for failure to comply which would then come into force. Even if not, as in the case of the Benn Act, the PM would be forced to comply via court action. Failure to comply following a court order would result in contempt of court charges. Note that in the current case, despite his public pronunciations, the PM has in fact committed himself in court documents to following the requirements of the Benn Act and additionally commited to not frustrating it's purpose. He recognises that he is not above the law.

share|improve this answer

answered 9 hours ago

Dan ScallyDan Scally

1,40477 silver badges1212 bronze badges

share|improve this answer

answered 9 hours ago

Dan ScallyDan Scally

1,40477 silver badges1212 bronze badges

answered 9 hours ago

Dan ScallyDan Scally

1,40477 silver badges1212 bronze badges

answered 9 hours ago

Dan ScallyDan Scally

1,40477 silver badges1212 bronze badges

2

The most honest answer would be that no-one really knows. Until the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, the situation couldn't arise because a PM who lost the ability to govern could use the royal prerogative to call an election. The legal theory is that Parliament is sovereign (subject to caveats about Queen's Consent), but the details of how that works in practice may not be settled until a few more theories have been presented to the Supreme Court and affirmed or rejected.

share|improve this answer

answered 9 hours ago

Peter TaylorPeter Taylor

3,0601010 silver badges1919 bronze badges

add a comment
 | 

2

The most honest answer would be that no-one really knows. Until the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, the situation couldn't arise because a PM who lost the ability to govern could use the royal prerogative to call an election. The legal theory is that Parliament is sovereign (subject to caveats about Queen's Consent), but the details of how that works in practice may not be settled until a few more theories have been presented to the Supreme Court and affirmed or rejected.

share|improve this answer

answered 9 hours ago

Peter TaylorPeter Taylor

3,0601010 silver badges1919 bronze badges

add a comment
 | 

The most honest answer would be that no-one really knows. Until the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, the situation couldn't arise because a PM who lost the ability to govern could use the royal prerogative to call an election. The legal theory is that Parliament is sovereign (subject to caveats about Queen's Consent), but the details of how that works in practice may not be settled until a few more theories have been presented to the Supreme Court and affirmed or rejected.

share|improve this answer

answered 9 hours ago

Peter TaylorPeter Taylor

3,0601010 silver badges1919 bronze badges

share|improve this answer

answered 9 hours ago

Peter TaylorPeter Taylor

3,0601010 silver badges1919 bronze badges

answered 9 hours ago

Peter TaylorPeter Taylor

3,0601010 silver badges1919 bronze badges

answered 9 hours ago

Peter TaylorPeter Taylor

3,0601010 silver badges1919 bronze badges